Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?

The reason why the theory of evolution is considered "bad science" is, well, I guess based on many reasons. I'll try and outline them as best I can1)Most of the evidence put forth by evolution can equally be used as evidence for creation.a)"microevolution"--changes in a population, for example, *bacteria* evolving into other kinds of *bacteria*. Because we've evolved new forms of bacteria is by no means an argument that all plants and animals evolved from a single cell!b)Similarities--This comes in various forms, similarities of DNA, similarities of fossils, embryonic similarities, homologous structures, the list goes on. Simply put, the similarities can point to a common designer rather than a common ancestor. As a crude example, consider similarities among various pieces composed by the same musician--they may show signs of similarities, but this does not imply they are a modification of 1 piece of music!c)Fossils--Yes, there are plenty of fossils. But the mere presence of a fossil is not evidence for evolution. In fact, even if the fossil record showed signs of gradual change it might not be evidence.Consider: So let's say there's me, and my pet chimp (hypothetical). The chimp dies, its remains get fossilized over time. Meanwhile my descendants propagate, and several million years later, some of their remains get fossilized in the same area. Neither the similarity between the monkey and human fossils, nor the geographic strata in which they're found is evidence that the "older, primitive" chimp fossil evolved into the "more complex, newer" human" fossil. Also, (I'm going to generate a storm of controversy over this!) there are huge gaps in the fossil record, and there's no need to assume that such "transitional forms" existed.Another reason why evolution is considered poor science is the frequent use of either misleading proof, or outright forgeries that are used in support of evolutionPiltdown man, Nebraska Man, Haeckel's embryonic similarities, there are quite a few of these forgeries. That's not to say all evidence for evolution is forged, just the presence of such things is a bit disturbing. You rarely see forgeries used as evidence in other areas of science!Arguments which are misleading are a bit common. For example, many textbooks show charts where the DNA similarities between various organisms are compared. Humans and chimps have very similar DNA. Whereas, humans and plants are not as similar. This evidence, in and of itself is not controversial--rather it's the bizarre conclusion--based on these similarities/dissimilarities we can say when, or even if they share a common ancestor??! Once again, consider performing an exact experiment, where one compares several pieces of music, analyzing their similarities and tries to "determine" if they are a modification of one piece of music. The problem becomes readily apparent--one has to first **ASSUME** that all life is descended from a common ancestor, rather than trying to prove that.Finally, last but not least, evolution contradicts some of the most basic laws of nature that we've observed time and time again. Fish produce fish--they don't produce legged creatures. Scaly cold-blooded reptiles produce other scaly cold-blooded reptiles, not warm-blooded creatures with hair or feathers. Any cell that reproduces asexually produces 2 identical offspring (1 produces 2). Whereas any creature that reproduces sexually has a mother AND a father (2 produce 1). There seems to be no reason to get from one to the other, nor has such a thing ever been observed. A seedless plant produces seedless plants. A plant that produces seeds comes from a plant that produces seeds. Yet again we see no violation of this in nature, but evolution rests on such absurd ideas as all plants sharing a common ancestor, bacterial cells evolving into multicellular organisms, mammals that produce live-young evolving from creatures that laid eggs, etc.Monsier Lynx{Edited to add some of the blank lines - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-23-2004]

OK, I sort of skimmed the surface of the evolution vs. creation debate. Can you actually try and understand the Creationist view?
I'll attempt to explain it, but don't take my word for it, you'll probably hear much better explanations from other sources.
First off, I want to take a little bit of time to elaborate on that analogy I tried to explain--musical pieces (which at first may sound totally irrelevant!). I pick up several pieces of music, and I observe a very high degree of similarity. For example, one sheet of music very closely resembles another. On the basis of these similarities I infer that they are a modification of one piece of music!! I analyze very meticulously how these various pieces differ from one another, and construct a tree based on that. Those that share more similarities branched off more recently (say, a while ago, there was the Moonlight Sonata. As typographical errors become introduced to the music, it becomes modified SO much from the original, that you must say it is a completely different piece!).
How, tell me does this differ from the approach taken by biologists? And taking that Polaroid example, there's no inherent contradiction in going from the East coast to the West coast. Yes, if you showed me a photo album I can infer those intermediates without actually showing me evidence of it!
With evolution we have contradictions all over the place. Take the supposed evolution of birds from reptiles. Fossils like Archaeopteryx, a bird, with feathers, wings, etc. have transitional features to that of a reptile? Simply digging up bird fossils, or finding lungfish--fish that have lungs, but the fin structure of, well fish, that's not saying much, other than, well, such organisms exist. If I asked you where a lungfish comes from--you'll say it comes from other lungfish. If I ask you want lungfish produce, you'll say they produce,not amphibians, not perch, but lungfish.
Simpler plants being found deeper in the fossil record? I can say that life was created separately, so I'm not violating any natural laws. Seedless plants continue to produce seedless plants. The first fruit-bearing plants that were created, well, I don't need to imagine an explanation for how a Palm tree, a fern, a venus fly-trap, and a Redwood tree can all result merely through genetic variation.
On the other hand--how do you explain the fact that the "evidence" presented for evolution is almost exclusively restricted to bacteria evolving into bacteria, the evolution of horses--that is one kind of horse population producing another kind of horse population, one kind of pachyderm evolving into another kind of pachyderm, drosophila, though acquiring mutations, producing drosophila with extra limbs. Do you really believe this is evidence that egg-laying creatures, like monotremes, and creatures that produce live young, like humans, share a common ancestor as well? If you do believe that all mammals share a common ancestor--would this have laid eggs--if so, wouldn't it continue to produce eggs (natural selection: if a mother is able to produce multiple young at once, the population grows much faster. Also, the young of egg-laying creatures don't depend on their mother's existence, whereas the young of creatures that develop in the womb--if the mother dies, so does the child!) Wouldn't natural selection automatically weed out a creature that loses the ability to reproduce asexually(so it can no longer multiply as fast as its competition)?
Spontaneous colonality in bacteria? Once again, you're telling me that bacteria form colonies--I already knew that from high school bio!! What's your point--do you know the difference between a colony and multicelular organism? A colony is **many** organisms each composed of 1 cell. A multicellular organism is **1** organism, composed of many cells. Why can't you get one from the other--you can see for yourself.
So there's a population of humans, several distinct organisms. Let's take you and your friend. You can spend as much time together as you like, however you will always be **you**, and your friend will always be distinct from you. If you have children, he has children, they too will be distinct organisms. Just because you live together doesn't mean that you will become "one" organism.
Do you get where I'm going with that argument? It's absurd to even imagine a colony of bacterial cells becoming 1 organism! Sure, they can cooperate, and to an unintelligent observer, they will certainly seem to be "one" organism. But just the way a population of humans will never become one organism composed of humans, a population of grass will never become a single organism composed of grass, a population of bees will never become one organism (now, they may function as one unit, that's a different story!), so too, multicellularity cannot arise from a colony of cells.

Regarding the first point--You know how creationists say that a handful of creatures were created in the beginning (they don't need to be created in the same exact instant, they could even be created gradually)? Specifically, 2 of each sexually reproducing kind (so you can't just create a male bat,or just a female fish, you need to have both of each species, so that the creatures can mate and proliferate. Even for worms, if you somehow evolve a worm with male & female reproductive organs, ANOTHER worm has to also have compatible reproductive organs,right?). No creationist would ever try and argue something like "God created dachshunds, and german shepards, and golden retrievers, and...". Rather seeing all the diversity in the population of dogs, and at the same time similarities among them, they can infer a common ancestor to all dogs. But how do we get so much variation in the population, if all that was created initially was one kind of dog? Microevolution!!
The idea is, once we have certain basic features, we can play around with them through selection, breeding, etc. and get quite a diverse range of characteristics. Except here's the catch--what if one of them evolves some structure not found in the rest of the population--like lungs. If a creature with lungs tries to mate with a creature that lacks said lungs--the DNA doesn't match up and you end up, with, well something like Down's syndrome, one of the parents has MORE DNA than the other, it doesn't match up--the offspring end up kinda retarded. If you were to say that something like lungs evolved gradually, we can see how creatures without lungs can survive, and creatures with lungs can survive, but what about something that doesn't quite perform the function of a lung? How would an intermediate be able to survive? And do we have evidence of such a creature, we'd need that first before saying amphibians evolved from fish.Come on, the second argument is too easy. YOU take the similarities to try and construct a "tree of life". Someone who has a concept of intelligent design won't say "God A created amphibians. God B created fish." Instead they'd see the similarites and just the way several works by the same architect show similarities, the various creations of God show similarities as well. You have your beliefs, he has his beliefs. It's cool if you want to present yours as science, but can you let other views to also be presented as science? It resembles the evidence from evolution rather than creation? Why do you say that? How is the evidence *inconsistent* with the design theory. Are you saying that those fossils shouldn't be there if God separately created them, either at some point in the distant past, or over a period of time? I'm not quite sure I see why similarities, or fossils should EXCLUSIVELY be used as evidence of evolution. I'm sure the evidence that Pandas and Fig trees evolved from bacteria, could **probably** be used to support creationism as well (A creationist would probably say that Pandas, perhaps they evolved from other kinds of bears, but initially you had to create a male & female bear. As for the fig tree, that comes from a seed of a fig, that grew on a fig tree...so you had to create, maybe not that EXACT fig tree you see outside, but something resembling it. So no, they don't share a common ancestor with a bacteria. Nor would the evolution of bacteria produce those kinds of organisms.)